Another school shooting in America

[sandymere 8,263]

7 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

The democrats and various gun control bodies have proposed that and it has been continually rejected by the supreme court as unconstitutional. One of the biggest upsets in America in the last 20 years has been the ruling that denying concealed carry permits is also unconstitutional and as the time has passed more states are issuing them. Several don't have any requirements at all as the 2nd Amendment is all that is necessary in their eyes.

Homicides of all kinds are at a 40 year low.

How do you remove the guns in circulation?

Do you need to? Or can it be a process or natural selection ie those that don't meet gun restriction lose there’s, those that do keep them. This could well alter ownership demographics rather than numbers leading to reasonably high ownership but low misuse as is seen in Germany.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

1 minute ago, sandymere said:

Gun free zones are irrelevant as the surrounding areas are not gun free and there are no way to police the gun free zones are gun free, ie people walked in to the "gun free zones" carrying guns. It would seem to me that gun free zones a stupid in a free gun society.

An instinctive reaction is that there is more real need of guns in the countryside, game shooting, pest control etc, so more average people have guns; Mr Average isn't a mass shooter.

 

Not when they're advertised as such. Law abiding people obey the law by definition. Criminals do not. There is a common denominator in this that is now being actively ignored. I'll agree that gun free zones are a stupid concept for the reasons you state but they're a very real part of urban living.

I'll agree that there are more needs for firearms in the countryside, and one of those not mentioned is the fact that law enforcement response can be much longer than the city because of the distance. In mine, it's about an hour on a 911 call because it's the equivalent of an officer in Manchester responding to a call in Preston. Judging by the weather this morning at 0630 it would be longer than that. But your assertion is that more guns equal more crime so we should all be shooting each other, no?

What about the 300 million + guns in circulation? How do we get rid of those?

[sandymere 8,263]

3 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

And how can you determine that they are unrelated and so different issues? You presented your argument for gun control with a simple and dangerously misleading dataset.

I don't know why Germany is so brilliant, enlighten me...

I determined it based on common sense and I determine that a little more of that would make the world a better place.

 

Ps Who said Germany was brilliant....

lol.

 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

4 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Do you need to? Or can it be a process or natural selection ie those that don't meet gun restriction lose there’s, those that do keep them. This could well alter ownership demographics rather than numbers leading to reasonably high ownership but low misuse as is seen in Germany.

Sorry Sandy, we had a post overlap where you'd responded and I'd reasked the question.

The Supreme court has already ruled that this can't/won't happen. We need a serious solution to a serious problem that everyone can get behind.

[sandymere 8,263]

1 minute ago, ChrisJones said:

Not when they're advertised as such. Law abiding people obey the law by definition. Criminals do not. There is a common denominator in this that is now being actively ignored. I'll agree that gun free zones are a stupid concept for the reasons you state but they're a very real part of urban living.

I'll agree that there are more needs for firearms in the countryside, and one of those not mentioned is the fact that law enforcement response can be much longer than the city because of the distance. In mine, it's about an hour on a 911 call because it's the equivalent of an officer in Manchester responding to a call in Preston. Judging by the weather this morning at 0630 it would be longer than that. But your assertion is that more guns equal more crime so we should all be shooting each other, no?

What about the 300 million + guns in circulation? How do we get rid of those?

I've answered that, time and natural loss through regulation.

I never said it was a quick fix but every journey starts with a 1st step. There is no reason those with a real use for a gun can’t have a gun but every reason that those who are going to carry out mass shooting shouldn’t. Of course no regulation would be fall proof but better than the current situation.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

12 minutes ago, scothunter said:

There never going to do that as I said earlier guns take preference over their kids well being.

It's the constitution, mate. The rights of the collective supercede the convenience of the few. All amendments are treated the same but the 2nd gets all the noise at the moment. That might sound harsh but this how you stop inalienable rights becoming privileges.

[Born Hunter 17,783]

1 minute ago, sandymere said:

I determined it based on common sense and I determine that a little more of that would make the world a better place.

 

Ps Who said Germany was brilliant....

lol.

 

It's a false conclusion based on a poor application of that 'common sense'. We need more critical thinking and much less common sense in this world. More guns = more killings is unsupported by the data, it's inconclusive at best. It's typically the sort of thing folks come out with who have already determined that a gun ban is what is needed because gun owners are the problem.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

1 minute ago, sandymere said:

I've answered that, time and natural loss through regulation.

I never said it was a quick fix but every journey starts with a 1st step. There is no reason those with a real use for a gun can’t have a gun but every reason that those who are going to carry out mass shooting shouldn’t. Of course no regulation would be fall proof but better than the current situation.

As above due to the post overlap.

[sandymere 8,263]

2 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Sorry Sandy, we had a post overlap where you'd responded and I'd reasked the question.

The Supreme court has already ruled that this can't/won't happen. We need a serious solution to a serious problem that everyone can get behind.

Crossed again, yes if there was an easy solution it would already be sorted. Just a terrible shame that school kids seem to be an increasing target.

[Born Hunter 17,783]

18 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Gun free zones are irrelevant as the surrounding areas are not gun free and there are no way to police the gun free zones are gun free, ie people walked in to the "gun free zones" carrying guns. It would seem to me that gun free zones a stupid in a free gun society.

An instinctive reaction is that there is more real need of guns in the countryside, game shooting, pest control etc, so more average people have guns; Mr Average isn't a mass shooter.

 

So you could say good guys with guns tend to obey gun free zones, whereas bad guys with guns find them easy targets.... Might there be room for a preventative action in that?

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Just now, sandymere said:

Crossed again, yes if there was an easy solution it would already be sorted. Just a terrible shame that school kids seem to be an increasing target.

Absolutely and I'm not going to blindly sit behind the gun lobby and ignore the elephant in the room. There is a problem and my state is addressing that by placing serving police officers in the schools to deal with all the other aspects of crime that occur on campuses where there are a lot of people concentrated in small areas. I'm also not going to let it slip through that the people's champion president has unpicked legislation that made it harder for people with mental health issues to get firearms. That is clearly a step backwards for all that taking an interest.

The task is to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people. My personal responsibility is to teach those how to use them correctly and turn the wrong into the trained right one student at a time. Working within the existing system to turning gun owners into trained shooters as a lot of the time a good guy with a gun has proven to be a huge asset when the bad guy with the gun turns up.

 

[sandymere 8,263]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

It's a false conclusion based on a poor application of that 'common sense'. We need more critical thinking and much less common sense in this world. More guns = more killings is unsupported by the data, it's inconclusive at best. It's typically the sort of thing folks come out with who have already determined that a gun ban is what is needed because gun owners are the problem.

Rubbish what we need is more common sense and less denying the obvious. Vested interest before children’s lives is utter bollocks.

False conclusion indeed what utter pish. 

In the USA more guns equal more gun deaths, simples, read what your concience tells you.

[sandymere 8,263]

2 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Absolutely and I'm not going to blindly sit behind the gun lobby and ignore the elephant in the room. There is a problem and my state is addressing that by placing serving police officers in the schools to deal with all the other aspects of crime that occur on campuses where there are a lot of people concentrated in small areas. I'm also not going to let it slip through that the people's champion president has unpicked legislation that made it harder for people with mental health issues to get firearms. That is clearly a step backwards for all that taking an interest.

The task is to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people. My personal responsibility is to teach those how to use them correctly and turn the wrong into the trained right one student at a time. Working within the existing system to turning gun owners into trained shooters as a lot of the time a good guy with a gun has proven to be a huge asset when the bad guy with the gun turns up.

 

Indeed if those that have guns are sensible regulated then there is hope to reduce the dodgy ones getting the guns. I have worry about armed police in schools and wouldn’t want it in the UK outside of emergency situations but USA is in a different situation.

[Born Hunter 17,783]

5 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Rubbish what we need is more common sense and less denying the obvious. Vested interest before children’s lives is utter bollocks.

False conclusion indeed what utter pish. 

In the USA more guns equal more gun deaths, simples, read what your concience tells you.

That is not what you said before! LOL. But seeing as you have now actually straightened out your position I stand by my rebutal that it's a dangerous leap to assume that more gun deaths is equal to more deaths from all causes.

Who's denying the obvious? I'm just forcing folks like you who are willing to engage in research when it suits to actually evaluate the data you present properly. Your first post was very sloppy.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Born Hunter

[ChrisJones 7,975]

6 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Rubbish what we need is more common sense and less denying the obvious. Vested interest before children’s lives is utter bollocks.

False conclusion indeed what utter pish. 

In the USA more guns equal more gun deaths, simples, read what your concience tells you.

How do you feel about 2/3's of recorded US gun deaths being suicides? What about the non-existent school shootings in country schools where most if not all are carrying in the home?

2 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Indeed if those that have guns are sensible regulated then there is hope to reduce the dodgy ones getting the guns. I have worry about armed police in schools and wouldn’t want it in the UK outside of emergency situations but USA is in a different situation.

Again the Supreme court has ruled that isn't going to happen at the federal level. Ironically the states that have stricter gun control also have higher crime rates up to and including homicides. Oakland, Detroit, New York etc...

Why worry about armed police in schools? If these shootings are a serious threat then surely not waiting for an armed response unit is a good thing? All police are armed in the US and it goes with the territory. Not to mention that they're enforcing the law for other things not just mass shootings.